1. The appellants-plaintiffs have filed this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2000 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Karera District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.20-A of 1992 rejecting the suit for specific performance of contract based on agreement to sell dated 1.3.1989 Ex.P-1. In this appeal, the appellants are referred as ‘plaintiffs’ and respondents as ‘defendants’.

2. The following admitted facts have come on record that :

(i)The defendant No.1 Uday Singh was the owner of the disputed property as described in para 2 of the plaint. The defendant No.1 sold the disputed land vide registered sale-deed dated 28.9.1989 Ex.D-1 to the defendants No.6 to 9.

3. In brief, the facts of the plaint are that the defendant No.1 Uday Singh had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the disputed property to the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 on 1.3.1989 Ex.P-1 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The plaintiff No.2 was minor at the relevant time and his father i.e. plaintiff No.3 acted for him as guardian. Rs.4,000/- was paid to the defendant No.1 as part of the consideration who in turn delivered the possession of the disputed property to the plaintiffs. The agreement to sell was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Karera. The plaintiffs have further alleged that the defendant No.1 in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, has further received on 20.3.1989 one bullock cart with two oxen worth Rs.6,000/-, silver kardhoni and two payals worth Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- in cash in all Rs.9,500/- as further consideration. The sale-deed was to be executed upto 1.4.1989 but the defendant No.1 instead of executing the registered sale-deed went on assuring the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 colluded with defendants No.2 to 4 and bent upon executing the registered sale-deed in their favour in order to defeat the aforesaid sale agreement in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 whereas, defendants No.2 to 4 were aware about the sale agreement. The plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part as per the sale agreement dated 1.3.1989. They are still ready and willing to pay the balance consideration and further to bear the expenses of registered sale-deed right from the beginning. However, the defendant No.1 has avoided the sale, hence, the suit for specific performance was filed on 27.9.1989 against defendants No.1 to 4. During pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 executed the sale-deed on 28.9.1989 Ex.D-1 in favour of the defendants No.6 to 9 with connivance of defendants No.2 to 4.

4. The defendant No.1 neither submitted his written statement nor contested the suit.

5. The defendants No.2 to 4 have filed the joint written statement and defendants No.6 to 9 have also filed joint written statement. Substance of the written statements are the same. All the defendants have denied the allegations of plaint. They have pleaded that they had no knowledge about the agreement to sell Ex.P-1 before executing the sale-deed dated 28.9.1989 Ex.D-1. The defendants have further asserted that possession of the disputed property was not handed over by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs as claimed by him in consequence of agreement Ex.P-1. They have claimed to be the bona fide purchaser of the disputed property and have asserted their possession. The defendants have further pleaded that the plaintiffs had never been ready and willing to perform the contract before filing of the suit and so, they are not entitled to get any decree as called for in the plaint.

6. The learned trial Court after framing issues vide impugned judgment has dismissed the suit in toto.

7. The following questions have cropped up for consideration in this appeal :

(i) Whether, the defendant No.1 after executing the agreement to sell dated 1.3.1989 Ex.P-1 handed over possession of the disputed property to the plaintiffs?

(ii) Whether, the plaintiffs had been ready and willing to perform the contract to se